I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

GOP Congressmen Who Begged For Federal Aid In Disasters Striking Home Districts Vote Against Sandy Aid

The first piece of the aid bill to assist victims of Super Storm Sandy passed the House of Representatives today, providing $9.7 billion to fund the National Flood Insurance Program so that claims made by victims who purchased flood insurance from the government program can get their money.

Without the additional funding, the insurance fund was set to run out of cash next week as a result of the high volume of claims resulting from the northeastern storm.

The measure was immediately passed by the Senate and now awaits the President’s signature.

The $9.7 billion—which represents only a small portion of $60 billion pork laden bill passed by the United States Senate—came free of any questionable additions as the money was specifically designated to fund the insurance program so that legitimate claims can be paid— and nothing else.

However, that did not stop 67 Republican members of the House from voting against the legislation while the legislation received 100 percent support from House Democrats.

While it is not particularly remarkable that there would be members of the Republican caucus who would vote against honoring the obligations of the United States government (they are, after all, threatening to disavow debt that we’ve already promised to pay if we don’t do what they say in making budget cuts), what shocks even an old cynic such as myself are those Members who had the extraordinary nerve to cast a ‘no’ vote despite recently pleading for the very same relief when voters in their own districts were under water or picking up the pieces of their lives following a devastating tornado.

Members like Missouri Republican Sam Graves who—just two years ago—begged President Obama for an emergency declaration freeing up big time federal bucks to aid the people in his home district in their hour of need following a severe natural disaster.

And what do you imagine the money was for?

Would you believe it was for damages Graves’ constituents suffered from flooding-the very same problem in New York and New Jersey that today’s House vote was addressing?

Here is what Congressman Graves had to say when it was his neighbors who were under water:

“I urge the President to approve this assistance without delay. Many communities along the river have been stretched to the limit preparing for and fighting this unprecedented flood.”

Yes…he really said that.

And yet, today, the Congressman voted to deny similar aid to the victims of Sandy.

Today, Congressman Broun cast a no vote on a bill created to help out those suffering from flooding in New York and New Jersey.

And then there is Republican Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama who, in 2011, held town meetings back home to help educate constituents victimized by a devastating tornado as to how to go about getting federal assistance money that his constituents would not have to pay back.

Here is the statement the distinguished gentleman from Alabama issued at that time as a part of his effort to bring people into his town meetings:

“I urge tornado victims to attend these meetings to better understand their federal assistance rights. Some of it is in the form of loans, SBA long term low interest loans but there are also direct grants that you do not have to repay if you qualify, unemployment compensation, rents as you try to find a new place to live.“

Today, Congressman Brooks voted against providing the funding to pay the rightful claims to those who suffered in Sandy.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

No. The Senate bill came first and had the pork built in. It has now gone to the House. Yesterday, the House voted to approve a portion of the Senate bill ($9.7 billion) to fund the Federal Flood Insurance Program. This was pork-free. There will now be another vote (possibly two as the remainder of the Senate bill may be divided into 2 more House bills) on the rest of the Senate allocation.

The “Senate Bill” HR 1 – I believe died with the last Congress. Watch for a new bill in the brand new Congress. Not only big bucks that cannot be spend in the immediate future but many changes to the Stafford Act — many good ones but some dump huge financial risks on states and locals governments who “volunteer”. Changes to allow recognized Tribal Governments to make direct disaster assistance requests to the President will make life for unrecognized tribes more interesting. HR 1 identified budgetary offsets — be careful what you lobby for.

That is correct. What is coming from the House, however, is going to put the same provisions to a House vote. Part one got passed Friday for 9.7 billion. That was already passed by the Senate immediately following.g The remainder of the 60 billion will be introduced as one or two additional bills on Jan. 15th. If passed, it goes back to the Senate.

Frankly you’re analogy disgusts me and I doubt you’re a Democrat. After all a real Democrat would point out that the huge budget deficit was not caused by the policies of the Democrats but the policies of the Republicans who slashed taxes without anyway to pay for them based on a the lie that raping the govt of funding is good for the economy. A Democrat would point out that getting America involved in two unfunded (one immoral) wars is what almost sent the nation into a depression. There is a real difference between requiring sustenance and needing a fix, only a heartless Republican would try to skew the two.

Yes that comment was meant for blackbeard and actually I’m currently in Louisville for a large scale EMR implementation at a the area’s largest healthcare system. I’ll be down here at least through spring and no idea where I’m heading to after here. Hope you’re enjoying living in NYC, this UWS I suspect!

Well, Rick, you could have at least pointed out to brianinnyc that the Democrats just overwhelmingly voted to keep the Bush Tax cuts in place for 99% of America and that Obama could end those wars anytime he wants. Complaining about it as a Republican problem just appears to be a perfect example of one of your favorite topics, hypocrisy.

You seem incredibly confused as to my role here. I could point out all sorts of things that are completely off-topic to any commenter. But that would take significantly more than a comment response, wouldn’t it? It would take a book. I respond to comments that are relevant to the topic of the article. If the article is about congressmen who voted against aid for Sandy but anxiously sought aid for their own districts in similar circumstances, why in the world would I get into a discussion about the tax cuts? Disappointing as it may be, I’m just not here to fulfill your agenda or make your political points. I suggest you get yourself your own blog for that.